film look --- what about frame jitter!? at DVinfo.net

John Jay · June 30th, 2003, 02:29 PM

i hadn't really thought of this before but all film projection even telecine is a mechanical process...

which means there is always some frame jitter

i have checked a few films from my DVD collection and yep frame jitter is always present with just maybe an amplitude of a few pixels or so, whereas video is pretty much rock solid if shot properly

i wonder whether this has some psychological perception effect on film look?

a bit like flutter (and 33.3 rpm harmonics) makes vinyl sound better than CD audio???

Robert Knecht Schmidt · June 30th, 2003, 02:37 PM

Sure, it effects perception, but I disagree that flutter makes audio perceptually more pleasing. Just the opposite. Nice steady video, with pixel-for-pixel interframe registration, while not looking "like film," is no less soothing on the eyes.

Nigel Moore · June 30th, 2003, 03:35 PM

Better? Pleasing? Is this not a matter of perception?

Flutter makes audio sound less digital, or clinical if you wanted to be harsh. Whether this is better/worse depends on where you come from. Personally, having my musical awareness in the late 70s / early 80s, there's something 'wrong' about CD.

Similarly, video looks 'clinical' compared to film. Perhaps jitter is just one of those contributing factors.

Martin Munthe · July 2nd, 2003, 04:54 AM

The motion picture industry is spending $$$$$$$$$$ on getting rid of frame jitter. Don't spend $ on trying to get it back. Strong visuals has nothing to do with faulty technology.

Nigel Moore · July 2nd, 2003, 05:14 AM

It's not a question of faulty technology, but the feel that you get from a presentation. Perhaps some jitter makes the end product look less like it's been created by machine and lends a more human touch?

John Jay · July 2nd, 2003, 06:22 PM

to contain jitter to less than 1/10th of a pixel on a telecine to DVD would mean the filmguide would have to be accurate to 0.005mm

even if this were possible machine wear and tear would quickly degrade the accuracy

Now i dont know for certain whether jitter has a contribution to film look but when we watch movies at the cinema or on DVD jitter is always present. I just wonder whether anyone has considered this in modelling film look from video.

I am busy at the moment but I intend to motion track some film footage to try and get a jitter signature which can be applied to video footage in say after effects and see for myself whether it has an effect on the feel in addition to magic bullet etc.

the level of jitter (1 pixel) i am speaking of could be contained in a 9 pixel array with the target steady motion in the centre most pixel - the point being it is very subtle

On another note - I have just finished watching the David Cronenburg short 'Camera' made in 2000

try to see this if you can, in the last thirty seconds something magic happens which for me is pure film look

Charles Papert · July 3rd, 2003, 02:16 AM

The original "Filmlook" process had a jitter component that could be switched on or off in various steps. I used it on a music video about 10 years ago but wasn't sure it made much of a difference on that project because it was quick cut and the camera was always moving. I think for projects that feature more leisurely pacing and locked-off frames (like vistas), there could be a perceptual difference. However I think I would place this pretty far down the list of visual/pyschological cues that replicate a cinematic look on video.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · July 3rd, 2003, 03:16 AM

Conjecturing here, but I'd guess that radiance wow (subtle low frequency interframe exposure difference) is as big an "it's film!" perceptual cue than spatial registration jitter. Wonder if Magic Bullet has this as an option.

Martin Munthe · July 6th, 2003, 05:34 AM

1. Adding a "weave" or "jitter" like you do in Digiffects Cinelook only makes the image go unsharp. Doing it digitally means the software has to recalculate the pixelgrid and that always results in loss of sharpness. The way Cinelook did (and does) it looks terrible.

2. Jitter in 35mm projection is one of the few things that really bother me with the format. I've never, ever viewed it as a "bonus" that comes with film. I used to complain a lot to distributors whe they released quick prints tha had weave from the actual print process oan not the projection. I understand distributors liike to save a few buck but sometimes it's horrible. In a theatre I like focus, enough light coming through a projector and a rock solid image. It's one of the resaons I love seeing 70mm projections from 65mm footage. In a good projection on 70mm the jitter is gone. I still percieve 70mm as film so the jitter can't have anything to do with it.

Take a look at the Contact DVD (shot on 65mm). It's FILM as far as you can take it qualitywise (not artistically). It has no weave whatsoever.

If jitter is the thing putting a vibrator under the television set might be the solution ;)

Joseph George · July 6th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Forget the "film" look. Film has its faults that it tries to overcome -- low frame rate, jitter. If you can shoot video without jitter and with higher frame rate than 24, go for it. DOF, camera movements, lighting, etc. has a lot more to do with artistic look, that is often refered to as film look than anything else.

June 30th, 2003, 02:29 PM	#1
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	film look --- what about frame jitter!? i hadn't really thought of this before but all film projection even telecine is a mechanical process... which means there is always some frame jitter i have checked a few films from my DVD collection and yep frame jitter is always present with just maybe an amplitude of a few pixels or so, whereas video is pretty much rock solid if shot properly i wonder whether this has some psychological perception effect on film look? a bit like flutter (and 33.3 rpm harmonics) makes vinyl sound better than CD audio??? __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

June 30th, 2003, 02:37 PM	#2
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Sure, it effects perception, but I disagree that flutter makes audio perceptually more pleasing. Just the opposite. Nice steady video, with pixel-for-pixel interframe registration, while not looking "like film," is no less soothing on the eyes. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 2nd, 2003, 04:54 AM	#4
Martin Munthe Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 331	The motion picture industry is spending $$$$$$$$$$ on getting rid of frame jitter. Don't spend $ on trying to get it back. Strong visuals has nothing to do with faulty technology. __________________ Martin Munthe VFX Supervisor/DP/Director

July 2nd, 2003, 06:22 PM	#6
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	to contain jitter to less than 1/10th of a pixel on a telecine to DVD would mean the filmguide would have to be accurate to 0.005mm even if this were possible machine wear and tear would quickly degrade the accuracy Now i dont know for certain whether jitter has a contribution to film look but when we watch movies at the cinema or on DVD jitter is always present. I just wonder whether anyone has considered this in modelling film look from video. I am busy at the moment but I intend to motion track some film footage to try and get a jitter signature which can be applied to video footage in say after effects and see for myself whether it has an effect on the feel in addition to magic bullet etc. the level of jitter (1 pixel) i am speaking of could be contained in a 9 pixel array with the target steady motion in the centre most pixel - the point being it is very subtle On another note - I have just finished watching the David Cronenburg short 'Camera' made in 2000 try to see this if you can, in the last thirty seconds something magic happens which for me is pure film look __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

July 3rd, 2003, 02:16 AM	#7
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	The original "Filmlook" process had a jitter component that could be switched on or off in various steps. I used it on a music video about 10 years ago but wasn't sure it made much of a difference on that project because it was quick cut and the camera was always moving. I think for projects that feature more leisurely pacing and locked-off frames (like vistas), there could be a perceptual difference. However I think I would place this pretty far down the list of visual/pyschological cues that replicate a cinematic look on video. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

June 30th, 2003, 03:35 PM	#3
Nigel Moore Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Switzerland Posts: 358	Better? Pleasing? Is this not a matter of perception? Flutter makes audio sound less digital, or clinical if you wanted to be harsh. Whether this is better/worse depends on where you come from. Personally, having my musical awareness in the late 70s / early 80s, there's something 'wrong' about CD. Similarly, video looks 'clinical' compared to film. Perhaps jitter is just one of those contributing factors.

July 2nd, 2003, 05:14 AM	#5
Nigel Moore Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Switzerland Posts: 358	It's not a question of faulty technology, but the feel that you get from a presentation. Perhaps some jitter makes the end product look less like it's been created by machine and lends a more human touch?

July 3rd, 2003, 03:16 AM	#8
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Conjecturing here, but I'd guess that radiance wow (subtle low frequency interframe exposure difference) is as big an "it's film!" perceptual cue than spatial registration jitter. Wonder if Magic Bullet has this as an option. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 6th, 2003, 05:34 AM	#9
Martin Munthe Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 331	1. Adding a "weave" or "jitter" like you do in Digiffects Cinelook only makes the image go unsharp. Doing it digitally means the software has to recalculate the pixelgrid and that always results in loss of sharpness. The way Cinelook did (and does) it looks terrible. 2. Jitter in 35mm projection is one of the few things that really bother me with the format. I've never, ever viewed it as a "bonus" that comes with film. I used to complain a lot to distributors whe they released quick prints tha had weave from the actual print process oan not the projection. I understand distributors liike to save a few buck but sometimes it's horrible. In a theatre I like focus, enough light coming through a projector and a rock solid image. It's one of the resaons I love seeing 70mm projections from 65mm footage. In a good projection on 70mm the jitter is gone. I still percieve 70mm as film so the jitter can't have anything to do with it. Take a look at the Contact DVD (shot on 65mm). It's FILM as far as you can take it qualitywise (not artistically). It has no weave whatsoever. If jitter is the thing putting a vibrator under the television set might be the solution ;) __________________ Martin Munthe VFX Supervisor/DP/Director

July 6th, 2003, 09:17 PM	#10
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	Forget the "film" look. Film has its faults that it tries to overcome -- low frame rate, jitter. If you can shoot video without jitter and with higher frame rate than 24, go for it. DOF, camera movements, lighting, etc. has a lot more to do with artistic look, that is often refered to as film look than anything else.